[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Tue Dec 15 16:01:27 UTC 2015

Exactly!

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> 

From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:23 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>; Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Dear All,

If in view of the Board some Recs. are against public interest and on the other hand they referred to the same issue( public interest to reject a given Recs.)

Then I do  not understand how they could refer to something for which( in their view ) there is no established definition and reject a Rec. using that non existent basis

Regards

Kavousd 
Sent from my iPhone

On 15 Dec 2015, at 16:11, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote:

Since the Board acknowledges in its comments that there is currently no legal definition of “global public interest” the only reasonable answer to this question is “the judgment of 2/3rd of the Board.”  To which I would respond that the “judgment of the CCWG-A” reflecting a rough consensus of the community is a far better judge of what is in the global public interest than the what 2/3rd of the Board say ….  Indeed, the exercise of the Board’s “big foot” veto on GPI grounds is a textbook example of why greater accountability is needed.

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> <image001.png>

From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 2:47 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> >; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Dear Bruce, 

Thank you again for providing our group with the Board comment. 

As raised in the CCWG call today, we are kindly requesting if the Board could provide our group with a response to the following question.

What are the legal basis and criteria  by which the Board considers a given Recommendation to be contrary to the Global Public Interest ?

Clarification would really be useful to help our group, but also the Chartering Organizations, to check our own recommendations. 

Thank you for sharing this email with the Board, and happy to expand on the question if need be. 

Best,

Thomas, Leon & Mathieu

Co-chairs

De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Bruce Tonkin
Envoyé : lundi 14 décembre 2015 11:49
À : Accountability Cross Community
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Hello Jordan,

Thanks for posting to the list.

The comments are also available in the public comment forum at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30nov15/msg00011.html

We had a half day meeting of the full Board on Thursday 10 Dec, and then spent a few hours again with the full Board finalizing the comments yesterday – Sunday 13 Dec.      That was in addition to another half day meeting held on Saturday 5 Dec.   All dates are relative to my time zone :)

Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151215/713b76b3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2849 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151215/713b76b3/image001-0001.png>